Swatch insists 'one more thing' trademark connected to Columbo, not Apple

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 82
    bondm16bondm16 Posts: 141member

    I see a lot of you accusing the spokes person from Swatch of lying. Can any of you actually show any proof what so ever that Swatch is lying about the reason behind this patent application? Can you...step up now if you can. Innocent until proven guilty. 

  • Reply 42 of 82
    razorpitrazorpit Posts: 1,796member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Bondm16 View Post

     

    I see a lot of you accusing the spokes person from Swatch of lying. Can any of you actually show any proof what so ever that Swatch is lying about the reason behind this patent application? Can you...step up now if you can. Innocent until proven guilty. 




    So, if it looks like dog sh*t and smells like dog sh*t, do you need to step in it to make sure its dog sh*t?    

  • Reply 43 of 82
    His and her's models: MacMillan and Wife.
    Rough and Ready models: McCloud
    Suave sophisticate: Name of the Game

    All with ads playing creepy whistling music and a guy with a flash light searching for swatch dealers in the fog.
  • Reply 44 of 82
    bondm16bondm16 Posts: 141member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by razorpit View Post

     



    So, if it looks like dog sh*t and smells like dog sh*t, do you need to step in it to make sure its dog sh*t?    


     Funny, you still haven't managed to do what I asked. Instead using an example of the simply obvious. The comment from Swatch is exactly that, a comment, so without knowing what is going on in the company you can not say with any accuracy that they are lying or telling the truth. NEXT...

  • Reply 45 of 82
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,512moderator

    I heard a rumor Swatch is considering developing a car.  A Sweugeot, perhaps?

     

  • Reply 46 of 82
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member

    First thing they said when they heard Columbo used to say this... "Who is Columbo"?

  • Reply 47 of 82
    razorpitrazorpit Posts: 1,796member
    bondm16 wrote: »
     Funny, you still haven't managed to do what I asked. Instead using an example of the simply obvious. The comment from Swatch is exactly that, a comment, so without knowing what is going on in the company you can not say with any accuracy that they are lying or telling the truth. NEXT...

    Honestly I couldn't care less about Swatch, but you did answer my question, apparently you do need to step in it to make sure it's dog sh*t.
  • Reply 48 of 82
    ceek74ceek74 Posts: 324member

    Swatch is irrelevant.  Should be called Swoosh, you know, Swiss for douche.

  • Reply 49 of 82
    calicali Posts: 3,494member
    I was just thinking...... "didn't some guy* on AI bring up Columbo a couple of days ago?!", and I came across your post! You sure done messed up, buddy....

    Priceless.


    *Sorry I could not remember who it was.

    I wouldn't doubt it if he helped. With the internet anyone can look up and find anything. Could have been a low level Swatch employee who pointed it out to them.

    Because of this I no longer share big ideas online anymore. I'm genuinely afraid Samsung will steal one of them. They should coin a new phobia for this. Scamsungphonia or something.
  • Reply 50 of 82
    calicali Posts: 3,494member
    If this was taken from Columbo why didn't they trademark "Just One More Thing"?
    Why trademark the famous Steve Jobs quote?

    Didn't Jeff Bozo trademark "One Last Thing" or something similar?
    He used it at the end of the FiREPhone unveil.
  • Reply 51 of 82
    bondm16bondm16 Posts: 141member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by razorpit View Post





    Honestly I couldn't care less about Swatch, but you did answer my question, apparently you do need to step in it to make sure it's dog sh*t.

    If you read my reply I said " using an example of the simply obvious" this means something that its obvious and requires no proof because of common sense. But if someone made a comment about something and you have no way of proving what they said was fact or fiction then you cant call them a liar simply because you think they are. As for the dog s#1t, only an idiot would step in it to test if it was real. 

  • Reply 52 of 82
    razorpitrazorpit Posts: 1,796member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Bondm16 View Post

     

    If you read my reply I said " using an example of the simply obvious" this means something that its obvious and requires no proof because of common sense. But if someone made a comment about something and you have no way of proving what they said was fact or fiction then you cant call them a liar simply because you think they are. As for the dog s#1t, only an idiot would step in it to test if it was real. 




    So you believe Swatch marketing is referencing a cigar smoking, slob of a cop from a 70's TV show, good for you.  Since we're not in "The People's Court" (I borrow from the 80's) the rest of us will see this for the farce that it is...

  • Reply 53 of 82
    dewmedewme Posts: 4,314member
    Is Swatch actually trying to come across as totally clueless and pathetic, or is this their natural behavior?
  • Reply 54 of 82

    Don't be. They chose to embrace this joke of an excuse. As if anyone doesn't see through it. Film noir? Oh really? Columbo is the last thing I think of when I think of film noir.
  • Reply 55 of 82
    robin huberrobin huber Posts: 3,635member
    Apple did the right thing by Swiss National Railways vis-a-vis their clock face design. So much for honorable behavior.
  • Reply 56 of 82
    damonfdamonf Posts: 224member
    I'd love to see some mid-level manger of Swatch squirm under oath as Apple's lawyers hit them with "Tick Different" and how their Columbo excuse for "One more thing" just doesn't jive with the it coming along with the "Tick Different " trademark application.

    Apple lawyer: "So you're saying that it's just an amazing coincidence that these 2 slogans are so similar to previously used Apple slogans and marks? I'll remind you: you're under oath..."


    Hey Swatch: welcome to my blacklist of companies I'll never buy a product from again. Samsung might appreciate your company.
  • Reply 57 of 82
    mainyehcmainyehc Posts: 116member

    I only have this to add about that miserable, sorry excuse for a company. And to think I used to own and wear stuff from Swatch…

     

     

    By the way, I was only joking, of course, but I came across this…

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickettsia_helvetica

     

    Apparently there's a tick-borne bacterium named after Switzerland. How quaint!

  • Reply 58 of 82
    bluefire1bluefire1 Posts: 1,217member
    For anyone who believes that, I have some very inexpensive swamp land I'm selling at a dirt cheap price.
  • Reply 59 of 82
    mcarling wrote: »
    Swatch's position is complete nonsense.  Trademarks are industry specific.  For example, Apple Computer, Inc. (now renamed Apple, Inc.) and Apple Corps (the Beatles' company) only had a trademark clash when Apple Computer, Inc. started to do music.  Columbo has nothing to do with the watch industry and is therefore completely irrelevant.  All trademark law disputes are judged primarily on the basis of whether or not consumers would be confused about the origin of a product.

    Fixed that for yer. ;)
  • Reply 60 of 82
    Don't be. They chose to embrace this joke of an excuse. As if anyone doesn't see through it. Film noir? Oh really? Columbo is the last thing I think of when I think of film noir.

    Maybe they have still b/w TV sets ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.